The Problem With Stanton Glantz

The Problem With Stanton Glantz

Dr. Stanton Glantz is ‘The Initiative Distinguished Professor of Tobacco Control’ at the Center for Tobacco Control, Research, and Education.

In his bio, it says that he “…conducts research on a wide range of topics ranging from the health effects of secondhand smoke (with particular emphasis on the cardiovascular system) to the efficacy of different tobacco control policies.”

He has been a rather outspoken critic of vaping, and has published several studies and statements that have made some pretty bold claims about the habit. He regularly seems to implicate vaping as a gateway habit to smoking, and even more recently, said that people who vape are actually in danger of drawing other people into smoking as well.

But is it possible that Dr. Glantz isn’t completely trustworthy when it comes to his statements about vaping?

What the evidence says

While Dr. Glantz seems to propagate his research as scientific, he has actually drawn quite a bit of criticism from others. Clive Bates, an advocate for analytics who believes in getting past the ‘rhetoric’ of campaigners, has criticized Glantz on several occasions.

On one occasion, he chided Glantz about his gateway effect claims. On another, he commented on how Dr. Glantz seemed to misrepresent information about particulate emissions.

But he’s not the only one who’s had a problem with the professor’s methods.

Michael Siegel, an American Tobacco Control Expert and public health researcher, works at the Boston University School of Public Health as a professor of community health sciences. He actually said that the data about E-cigs being a gateway to smoking showed that the opposite was true – raising serious concerns about Glantz’s claims.

Information! Professor Carl Phillips, who received his phD from Harvard University, has also criticized Glantz’s work, citing problems with almost every aspect of his study claiming that E-cigs are a gateway to tobacco.

What does this mean for the E-cig industry?

In the end, it seems pretty easy to see that Dr. Glantz isn’t analyzing data in a way that everyone agrees with. He has faced some pretty staunch criticism from many people on the vaping side, and even from people within the tobacco control sector.

While it might not be completely fair to say that he’s flat-out wrong when it comes to vaping, it could definitely be said that anyone reading his studies should do so with an open mind. Remember that Dr. Glantz may very well have an agenda against electronic cigarettes that pushes him to present the facts in such a way as to shed unnecessarily negative light on them.

There definitely seems to be conflicting data on these issues – and it seems reasonable to conclude that Dr. Glantz might not be correct on a number of his anti-vaping assumptions.

What should you do?

As you read evidence and do your own research about E-cigs, remember to keep everything in perspective. Try not to believe everything you see until you’ve seen other scientists respond to it. Try to find out the truth. That’s what we’re all searching for, but no one scientist is going to be able to present us with it all on their own – including Dr. Glantz.

About The Author

NicoleIt's my passion to do the research about familiar to me topics, especially when it comes to electronic cigarettes and the whole vaping industry as such. I hope you will find my content useful and when / if you do - please do share it! I will appreciate it! :) See our ''Who We Are'' page to find out more about me and my colleagues. Thanks and I look forward to your comments and feedback.